UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. B KUMARI VALSALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the respondent in W.P.(C) No. 32446/2010 instituted by the respondent. By Ext.Pl notification dated 22.4.2003, the appellant invited application for appointment to the post of Professor (Ezhava turn) in the Music Department of the appellant. Responding to Ext.Pl, the respondent submitted Ext.P2 application. Respondent, as per Ext.P2 is the lsl rank holder both in B.A. and M.A Music. Sheisalsoa holder of Doctorate in Music from the appellant University. Though Ext.Pl is dated 22.4.2003 and Ext.P2 is dated 22.5.2003, the appellant didn't take any action to complete the selection process despite the fact that the respondent was the only applicant in the community quota. Aggrieved by the inertia on the side of the appellant, the respondent moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 13396/2006, judgment of which was produced as Ext.P3 dated 16.6.2006. On the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would proceed with the selection process and bring it to a logical conclusion at the earliest the Writ Petition was closed by Ext.P3. The appellant didn't proceed with the selection process as submitted before this Court which is recorded in Ext.P3 judgment. Thereupon, the respondent moved a petition for contempt. The appellant submitted that sanction was accorded to constitute the Selection Committee after bringing notice that three Writ Petitions were pending before this Court. Recording the submission made by the appellant the contempt proceedings was closed by Ext.P4 judgment dated 1.7.2009. Thereafter, an interview was conducted on 10.5.2010. However, the result of the interview was not communicated to the respondent. Later, through an information obtained under the Right to Information Act the respondent came to know that the Selection Committee didn't recommend any of the candidates for appointment. Ext.P6 is the copy of the information so conveyed. Assailing the selection process and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to appoint the respondent as Professor in the Music Department in pursuance to Ext.Pl notification, the respondent moved the Writ Petition. The Registrar of the appellant through a counter affidavit stated that the Selection Committee did not recommend any candidate due to the reason that the performance in the interview, quality of published work and research work are not upto the standard of qualification prescribed for the post of Professor in the notification and that the Vice Chancellor accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Annexure-Rl (a), a photocopy of the minutes of the selection committee was also produced.

(2.) The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment found that ExtR1(a) didn't contain any details and therefore, it could not be held to be valid. However, it was further found that it is for the expert academic bodies to evaluate the qualification of the candidates and the eligibility, especially, when a Selection Committee was formed. Therefore, while allowing the petition, selection process as per Ext.R1(a) was held illegal. Without issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to appoint the respondent, the appellant was directed to constitute a fresh Selection Committee for conducting an interview afresh and to take appropriate action in the matter. Alleging non compliance of the judgment contempt case was filed. Thereupon, belated appeal was preferred. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned by separate order.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel representing the standing counsel as well as Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records including Annexure-Rl (a).